Discussion Title: Should public transport be free?

1. Public transport should be free.
1.1. Con: There are many people who would be unwilling to make a switch to public transport even if it is free of cost.
1.1.1. Pro: For many people, [comfort is an important factor](https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/How-to-make-public-transport-an-attractive-option-in-your-city?language=en_US) in deciding what method of transport to use.
1.1.1.1. Con: People [do not mind](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/03/06/top-eight-reasons-people-give-up-on-public-transit/) using crowded buses or trains given that services run frequently and there are not many delays.
1.1.1.1.1. Pro: The subway in Tokyo remains one of the most popular forms of transport in the city despite carriages often running at [200% over capacity](https://www.amusingplanet.com/2016/08/subway-pushers-of-japan.html).
1.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: Tokyo's subway system is so overcrowded that the city has utilised '[subway pushers](https://www.reckontalk.com/japanese-train-pushers-oshiya-tokyo-asia-photos-videos/)' to ensure maximum efficiency when boarding passengers onto it's trains.
1.1.1.1.2. Pro: Passenger numbers on the London underground increased by nearly [a third](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/11113140/Why-London-commutes-are-becoming-painfully-crowded.html) between 2002 and 2012.
1.1.1.1.2.1. Con: London tubes have become less crowded in [more recent years](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/tfl-finances-transport-for-london-deficit-passenger-numbers).
1.1.1.2. Pro: If public transport is routinely crowded, with hardly any space to sit or stand, it is likely that people would be unwilling to make the switch compared to the comfort of private transport.
1.1.1.2.1. Con: -> See 1.1.1.1.1.
1.1.1.2.2. Pro: Those traveling long distances might be unwilling to travel on crowded public transport out of the inconvenience of getting tired at the end of their journey.
1.1.1.2.3. Pro: [Crowding](https://sciencenorway.no/forskningno-mental-health-norway/public-transport-poses-problems-for-those-with-mental-disorders/1453974) is one reason why those with mental health diffficulties would avoid public transport.
1.1.1.2.4. Con: Crowding proves that demand for public transport is high.
1.1.1.3. Pro: Hong Kong's transport system - one of the best in the world - is [pristine](https://www.caledonian-couriers.co.uk/the-best-public-transport-in-the-world-5-amazing-systems-we-should-copy/) in terms of cleanliness, as well as boasting free Wifi at every station.
1.1.2. Con: Even if some people are not willing to change their transport habits, evidence suggests that where public transport is made free, the [absolute number](https://idoxgroup.com/public-sector/transport/free-for-all-fare-free-public-transport-is-going-places/) of people using public transport, increases.
1.1.2.1. Pro: French cities where public transport has been made free have seen up to an increase of up to [142%](https://qz.com/1442882/free-public-transit-is-gaining-popularity-in-european-cities/) in transport uptake.
1.1.3. Con: Just because all people would not utilise changes, this does not mean they are not worth doing.
1.1.3.1. Pro: This logic is absurd. It would suggest that we should not have allowed the development of email because primary form of communication for some people would still be 'letter writing'.
1.1.4. Pro: A persons [ability to travel](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/civil-environmental-geomatic-engineering/sites/civil-environmental-geomatic-engineering/files/mental_health_and_travel_-_final_report.pdf) on public transport can be affected by their mental health. \(p. 80\)
1.1.4.1. Pro: Those with mental health issues [may find using public transport distressing](https://www.hypnosis-in-london.com/social-anxiety-public-transport/).
1.1.4.1.1. Con: Avoiding things that makes one anxious [only reinforces anixety](https://www.cci.health.wa.gov.au/~/media/CCI/Mental%20Health%20Professionals/Panic/Panic%20-%20Information%20Sheets/Panic%20Information%20Sheet%20-%2003%20-%20The%20Vicious%20Cycle%20of%20Anxiety.pdf). Thus, if someone with an anxiety disorder finds public transport distressing they should not avoid using it.
1.1.4.1.2. Pro: For people suffering with mental health issues, poor accessibility of some information about transport, bus timetables and routes might become [difficult to understand](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/662737/report-on-mental-impairments_final.pdf) \(p. 29\).
1.1.4.1.3. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.3.
1.1.5. Pro: [Safety and security concerns](https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-articles/21846/safety-security-public-transport/) might deter some people from making a switch to public transport.
1.1.5.1. Pro: According to the Home Office’s British Crime Survey, [one in five](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8958842/One-in-five-bag-thefts-now-occur-on-public-transport.html) bag thefts now occur in public transportation.
1.1.5.2. Pro: In the UK, the average value of goods taken per person in public transport amounts to [£153](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8958842/One-in-five-bag-thefts-now-occur-on-public-transport.html).
1.1.5.3. Pro: In the [UK](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hate-crimes-public-transport-homophobic-religion-racist-uk-attacks-tube-train-bus-a8291761.html), homophobic, religious and race hate crimes on public transport continue to rise.
1.1.5.3.1. Pro: British Transport Police \(BTP\) figures show that faith-linked attacks [more than quadrupled](https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/british-transport-police), from 64 in 2013 to 294 in 2017.
1.1.5.3.2. Pro: The number of gay, lesbian, or bisexual victims on UK public transport networks trebled from [139 in 2013 to 416 in 2017](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hate-crimes-public-transport-homophobic-religion-racist-uk-attacks-tube-train-bus-a8291761.html).
1.1.5.3.3. Pro: Over a five year period from 2013 to 2017, racially motivated hate crimes jumped from [1,453 to 2,566](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hate-crimes-public-transport-homophobic-religion-racist-uk-attacks-tube-train-bus-a8291761.html) in the UK.
1.1.6. Pro: Some commuters may not find public transport convenient for their needs.
1.1.6.1. Pro: Those who might need to commute to long distances and would be required to [shift trains or buses in between](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190128-the-cost-of-luxembourgs-free-public-transport-plan) are likely to be unwilling to switch to public transport systems.
1.1.6.2. Pro: People who need to carry heavy things to work, such as laborers or [teachers](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190128-the-cost-of-luxembourgs-free-public-transport-plan), would find that private means of transport still remains the most convenient alternative for them.
1.1.6.3. Pro: One major reason for people's unwillingness to switch to public transport is reliability rather than cost.
1.1.6.3.1. Pro: In 2018, delays on Britains rail networks were the worst they'd been for [12 years](https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/car-industry-news/2018/09/21/car-reliance-increase-due-to-public-transport-failings).
1.1.6.3.2. Pro: Frequent delays on public transport mean that people [risk arriving late](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/03/06/top-eight-reasons-people-give-up-on-public-transit/) to important places such as their workplace. This can have catastrophic knock-on effects.
1.1.6.3.2.1. Con: Passengers whose trains are [delayed](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-42024020) by more than five minutes in Japan are issued with a certificate which they can show to employers and teachers as reason for their lateness.
1.1.6.3.3. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.1.
1.1.6.3.4. Con: There are places where [public transport is highly reliable](https://qz.com/1132306/japans-infamous-dedication-punctuality-meant-they-apologized-for-a-train-being-20-seconds-early/). In these areas, reliability is not a sufficient reason discouraging people from using free public transport.
1.1.6.3.5. Pro: A study at UC Berkeley [showed that](https://www.governing.com/blogs/view/gov-reasons-riders-abandon-public-transit.html) more than half of the riders had reduced their use of public transportation specifically because of its unreliability.
1.2. Pro: Free public transport would have social benefits.
1.2.1. Pro: Social interaction is increased when time spent driving is decreased.
1.2.1.1. Pro: It has been said that for every 10 minutes of car travel time by car, [social connections](https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/top-10-benefits-public-transportation/1063096/) are reduced by 10%.
1.2.1.2. Con: Driving is not necessarily devoid of social interaction as there is room to travel with others and converse during the journey.
1.2.1.2.1. Pro: Carpooling has been shown to have many [social benefits](https://blog.blablacar.com/newsroom/news-list/study-social-impacts-carpooling).
1.2.1.2.1.1. Pro: Carpooling is [less stressful](https://www.uottawa.ca/parking/carpooling/benefits-of-carpooling) than commuting alone.
1.2.1.2.1.1.1. Pro: Teaming up with other parents to carpool kids can help [eliminate some of the stress](https://www.moneycrashers.com/carpooling-benefits/) that goes along with a child’s social and extracurricular calendar.
1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1. Con: Carpooling with other parents might increase stress levels in case the plans falls out.
1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: Parents Magazine reports that [7%](https://www.moneycrashers.com/carpooling-benefits/) of families say their carpooling arrangements fall through at least once per week. This can certainly add stress and frustration when the parent is busy with other work or does not have any alternate arrangements.
1.2.2. Pro: The poor are more reliant on public transportation than the rich. Making it free allows the poor to participate better in society.
1.2.2.1. Pro: Where public transport is free, [older people](https://greenerjourneys.com/blog/free-bus-pass-older-people-benefits-everyone/) without the economic capacity to arrange private transportation are given the means to spend in local shops and utilise local services.
1.2.2.1.1. Pro: The increasing longevity of the aging population in the US is aiding [consumer spending](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190930-the-untapped-potential-of-the-longevity-economy).
1.2.2.2. Con: Alternative measures can be introduced to make public transport more affordable.
1.2.2.2.1. Pro: Fare prices could be slashed across the board.
1.2.2.2.2. Pro: Employers can introduce an interest free [public transport loan scheme](https://www.ed.ac.uk/transport/public-transport/interest-free-public-transport-loan/how-it-works).
1.2.2.2.2.1. Con: This still excludes some people because only some employers will introduce such a programme.
1.2.2.2.3. Pro: [Daily or weekly fare caps](https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/find-fares/tube-and-rail-fares/pay-as-you-go-caps) can be introduced to prevent those who prefer using a 'pay as you go' system.
1.2.2.2.4. Pro: Prices for students can be decreased to encourage its widespread use.
1.2.2.2.5. Pro: Those in the UK who are job seeking and claiming Universal Credit can apply for a [railcard](https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2018/03/job-seekers-encouraged-to-get-50-off-railcard/) which gives them 50% off fares.
1.2.2.2.6. Con: Such alternative measures tend to exclude some people whose circumstances make them seem unsuitable.
1.2.2.3. Pro: Parents have reported talking their children out of after school social activities as they [cannot afford](https://www.poverty.ac.uk/system/files/WP_Analysis_No3_Focus-groups_Fahmy-Pemberton-Sutton.pdf) the transport costs for them to get there \(p. 30\).
1.2.3. Con: Some types of public transport are [extremely loud](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/london-tube-underground-noise). This makes it difficult for social interactions to take place.
1.2.3.1. Pro: Some areas of [London's tube network](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/london-tube-underground-noise) expose passengers to music-concert level noise.
1.2.3.2. Con: Most commonly used public transport, such as [buses](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352146518306227) and [trains](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3896847/) are free of loud noise and are relatively silent.
1.2.3.2.1. Pro: The [EU has recently introduced a law](https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/1/20676854/electric-cars-artificial-safety-noise-low-speeds-european-union-rules-2019-2021), which stipulates that all electric vehicles eventually need to produce artificial noise while traveling at low speeds, to make up for the lack of noise from their internal engines.
1.2.4. Con: The main purpose of transport is to facilitate travel from one place to another. Given that any social benefits provided by free public transport would not impact the ability to get from one place to another, it should not be a major concern.
1.2.4.1. Con: The social and health benefits of taking public transport have been linked to [happier individuals](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/taking-public-transport-instead-of-driving-to-work-makes-people-happier-study-suggests-9732535.html).
1.2.5. Con: Free public transport merely encourages a greater number of people to occupy the same physical spaces. It does not mean that people are more likely to establish a social connection between those they are travelling next to.
1.2.5.1. Con: 100 strangers in a room are more likely to strike up a conversation between one another than if those same 100 strangers are miles apart from one another. Thus, being physically closer to another person does make you more likely to establish a social connection.
1.2.5.2. Pro: In London, there is a [culture of avoiding conversation](https://www.citylab.com/life/2016/09/tube-chat-no-thanks-says-london/502247/) when using public transport.
1.2.5.3. Pro: Most people [are busy on their cellphones](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148419) while using public transport.
1.2.6. Pro: One study found that free public transport provided people with an [increased sense of freedom](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/oct/15/i-leave-the-car-at-home-how-free-buses-are-revolutionising-one-french-city).
1.2.7. Pro: Free public transport [increases mobility for older people](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/oct/15/i-leave-the-car-at-home-how-free-buses-are-revolutionising-one-french-city).
1.2.7.1. Pro: Free public transport allows older people to better maintain social relationships, thus [preventing loneliness](https://greenerjourneys.com/blog/free-bus-pass-older-people-benefits-everyone/) and ensuring mental well-being.
1.2.7.2. Con: Many places already provide free public transport for elderly users.
1.2.7.2.1. Pro: In England, [free bus travel](https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-elderly-person-bus-pass) is already available for those who have reached the State Pension age.
1.2.7.2.2. Pro: Those who are over the age of 60 can [travel free on buses, tubes and other forms of transport](https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-elderly-person-bus-pass) when travelling within London.
1.2.7.2.3. Pro: The Seniors SmartRider travel card entitles older citizens to free off-peak travel in [Western Australia](https://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/finance/seniors-finance/guide-to-transport-concessions).
1.2.7.3. Con: [More than half](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33195093) of those in England aged 65-84 do not use the free transport that they're already entitled to.
1.2.7.3.1. Pro: Many [complaints](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/19/public-transport-failing-older-people) from the older generation centre around how current public transport does not provide the service they need in the locations they need it. Without acknowledging and changing this, there is little benefit to older people in a free service.
1.2.8. Con: Public transport use is linked to the [spread of disease and illness](https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/influenza/public-transportation-linked-spread-flu-illnesses).
1.2.8.1. Pro: The 'London Under the Microscope' project found [121 different bacteria and mould strains](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/london-underground-bacteria-tubes) on public transport.
1.2.8.1.1. Pro: Some of the bacteria found on public transport in London is [amonst the most dangerous of superbug families](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/london-underground-bacteria-tubes) as ranked by the World Health Organisation.
1.2.8.1.2. Pro: On seven lines of the London Underground network, the seats are [never washed](https://metro.co.uk/2017/02/23/seats-on-seven-london-underground-lines-are-never-shampooed-6464904/).
1.2.8.2. Con: According to a [2013 survey](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/blasting-a-myth-catching-the-bus-makes-you-no-more-likely-to-catch-the-flu-8647804.html), those who use public transport are no more likely to catch the flu than those who cycle or drive.
1.2.8.3. Pro: Research has found that riding transit in flu season can increase the risk of catching an acute respiratory infection by [six-fold](https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2334-11-16).
1.2.8.4. Pro: [Research has linked](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/are-city-buses-making-us-sick/579/) certain bus routes in Houston to higher incidences of tuberculosis.
1.2.8.5. Pro: The poor ventilation and close contact of people in public buses are thought to significantly contribute to the spread of [tuberculosis in South African cities](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23423215).
1.2.8.6. Pro: Those who take public transport are [6 times more likely to suffer from acute respiratory illness than those who commute solo](https://www.theloop.ca/is-taking-public-transit-making-me-sick/).
1.3. Pro: Making public transport free would make transport services more efficient.
1.3.1. Con: Current transport infrastructure is not equipped to cope with the increased demands that would come with making public transport free.
1.3.1.1. Pro: In many places, public transport services already struggle to keep up with the huge demand. Making public transport free is likely to increase this demand even further.
1.3.1.1.1. Pro: Trains in the United Kingdom are [overcrowded to nearly double their capacity.](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jan/03/uk-train-overcrowding-highest-level-in-years-labour)
1.3.2. Con: Removing the cost of using public transport is funding that could be used elsewhere to address shortcomings in the transport system.
1.3.2.1. Pro: Trains could be made [safer and faster](https://www.popsci.com/make-trains-safer-and-smarter/).
1.3.2.1.1. Pro: Remote [Positive Train Control](https://www.up.com/media/media_kit/ptc/about-ptc/) \(PTC\) systems can be used to help make trains safer, [using GPS](https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/g1484/4-ways-to-make-our-trains-safer-16701886/?slide=1) to alert conductors when trains are going to fast.
1.3.2.1.2. Pro: Laser profile sensors can be used to measure signs of wear on rail tracks that may potentially cause [rail disruption](https://www.micro-epsilon.co.uk/news/2019/2019-05-24-UK_ME342-Laser-profile-sensors-measure-conductor-rail-wear-and-track-gauge/).
1.3.2.2. Pro: Investment could be provided to improve transport links in rural areas.
1.3.2.2.1. Pro: Transport links between rural and urban areas could be strengthened.
1.3.2.2.2. Pro: In some rural areas, due to inadequate public transport, when choosing which secondary school to attend, many young people must factor in [whether their parents are able to drive them](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38639888) to school.
1.3.2.2.3. Con: Even with supported bus services, rural uptake has [declined](https://www.lep.co.uk/news/traffic-and-travel/taxis-should-be-used-as-public-transport-in-rural-areas-say-campaigners-1-9515229) in recent years, indicating a reduced demand for such services.
1.3.2.3. Con: Failing to sanction the proposal for free public transport does not mean that the necessary investment for the project will be used to conduct other projects. Each project will require independent consideration.
1.3.3. Con: Free public transport would only occur under an [inefficient](https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/our-railways-are-a-disaster-but-nationalisation-would-only-make-the-situation-worse-a7222561.html) system of public ownership.
1.3.3.1. Pro: Fully funded public transport removes motivation to improve service quality.
1.3.3.1.1. Con: Through innovation, operators will be able to cut costs and keep a higher margin of what the government subsidised.
1.3.3.1.2. Pro: Fully funded public transport would mean that transport networks come under public ownership. Under public ownership there would not be the same '[profit motivation](https://smallbusiness.chron.com/profit-motivation-35864.html)' that would exist with a privately owned transport network.
1.3.3.1.2.1. Pro: Under the model of private ownership, transport companies have a compeititve incentive to provide the best possible service to consumers or risk losing their market share.
1.3.3.1.2.1.1. Pro: The very survival of the companies, shareholders and employees are thus dependent on the company remaining profitable.
1.3.3.1.2.1.2. Pro: Privately owned companies are [incentivised to innovate](https://www.fte.org/teachers/teacher-resources/lesson-plans/is-capitalism-good-for-the-poor-2/lesson-4-how-incentives-affect-innovation/) and come up with creative improvements that make journey times quicker, more consistent and pleasant for commuters.
1.3.3.1.2.2. Con: 'Profit motivation' does not guarantee that companies will view increasing service quality as the best means of generating a profit. In practice, it often means that companies are [willing to underinvest or 'cut corners'](https://weownit.org.uk/privatisation) in order to generate a profit.
1.3.3.1.3. Con: Free public transport would boost the economy.
1.3.3.1.3.1. Con: This is difficult to prove given that the economic impact of free public transport is likely to vary based on a number of variables such as geographical location and developments in the national economy.
1.3.3.1.3.2. Pro: Free public transport would encourage people to go to locations they otherwise would not visit.
1.3.3.1.3.2.1. Pro: Many transport systems in [rural areas](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/10/the-case-for-rural-public-transport) are extremely expensive. Free transport would thus encourage people to make longer trips, covering greater distances.
1.3.3.1.3.2.2. Pro: It is likely that the presence of a larger number of people will result in increased consumer spending and thus benefit local businesses.
1.3.3.1.3.2.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.2.1.
1.3.3.1.3.3. Con: [Funding for public services](https://www.who.int/health_financing/topics/revenue-raising/public-funding/en/) is usually raised through taxation. If free public transport involved raising taxes to account for additional spending, this would disincentivize taxpayers from subjecting themselves to stringent tax laws, ultimately reducing revenue generated.
1.3.3.1.3.4. Pro: People who use free public transport will save on transportation costs and would have higher disposable incomes.
1.3.3.1.3.4.1. Pro: People would not only save on fuel costs, but transport maintenance and insurance costs too, which takes up a considerable proportion of people's income.
1.3.3.1.3.4.1.1. Con: Private motoring is already affordable. As their popularity increases, electric vehicals are now beginning to benefit from [reduced insurance premiums](https://www.whatcar.com/advice/owning/are-electric-cars-more-expensive-to-insure/n18043), as well as limited [road tax, parking and other costs](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/12/electric-cars-already-cheaper-own-run-study).
1.3.3.1.3.4.1.1.1. Pro: Between 2011 and 2015, global sales of [plug-in light vehicles](https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-918-march-28-2016-global-plug-light-vehicle-sales-increased-about-80-2015) \(PEVs\) increased ten fold.
1.3.3.1.3.4.1.2. Pro: Free transportation would reduce consumer's motoring costs, freeing up their income to be spent on other things.
1.3.3.1.3.4.1.2.1. Pro: Average fuel costs [increase each year](https://www.verizonconnect.com/resources/article/combat-rising-fuel-prices/), meaning that the provision of free public transport will successively increase the disposable income of households.
1.3.3.1.3.4.1.2.2. Pro: In the [US](https://www.thezebra.com/auto-insurance/average-auto-insurance/), the average cost of car insurance is $1,548 per year. Free public transport will mean that households will be able to spend this amount on other goods and services.
1.3.3.1.3.4.1.3. Pro: In [2013](https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-household-budget), an average household in the US spent 14% of their income on transportation.
1.3.3.1.3.4.1.4. Pro: For the average household in the US, transportation costs are [almost as much](https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-household-budget) as what is spent on rent or the direct costs of home ownership.
1.3.3.1.3.4.2. Con: Making public transportation free won’t necessarily make it completely free. Citizens will have to pay extra taxes to pay for the transportation.
1.3.3.1.3.5. Con: Free public transport would have negative consequences for workers and for the labour market.
1.3.3.1.3.5.1. Pro: Free public transport would undermine economic powerhouses such as Uber and their employees.
1.3.3.1.3.5.1.1. Con: Rather than being undermined by a funded transport system, Uber and other such ride-hailing services could opt to [work together with](https://vancouversun.com/business/local-business/ride-hailing-services-under-scrutiny-for-possibly-undermining-transit-use-and-benefits) public transport authorities to provide innovative solutions to gaps in the transport market, and keep money flowing through the economy.
1.3.3.1.3.5.1.1.1. Con: It is difficult to see how public transport authorities and ride-hailing services could work together. Any passenger that uses public transport is one less customer that could have used Uber or a similar service to complete that journey.
1.3.3.1.3.5.1.1.2. Pro: Ridesharing and shuttlebuses operated by ride-hailing companies could assist in rural areas where [routine bus](https://vancouversun.com/business/local-business/ride-hailing-services-under-scrutiny-for-possibly-undermining-transit-use-and-benefits) and other services may have been cut due to lack of demand.
1.3.3.1.3.5.1.2. Pro: Ride-hailing companies see a ‘[massive market opportunity](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/opinion/uber-stock.html)’ in replacing bus and subway rides to increase their profits.
1.3.3.1.3.5.2. Pro: The introduction of free public transport would threaten the livelihoods of many employees working for privately owned transportation companies.
1.3.3.1.3.5.3. Pro: Increasing [geographic mobility](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/labor-mobility.asp) may substantially increase available labour supply.
1.3.3.1.3.5.3.1. Pro: [Excess supply](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_supply) is likely to drive wages down and increase unemployment.
1.3.3.1.3.5.3.1.1. Pro: If there is an excess supply of labour, employers are able to choose workers who are willing to be paid less for their services.
1.3.3.1.3.5.3.1.2. Pro: By definition, an excess supply of labour means that there are more labourers available than there are jobs. If geographic mobility results in excess available labour, increased unemployment is thus inevitible.
1.3.3.1.3.5.3.1.3. Con: When wage rates are high, employers prefer to hire [fewer employees](https://opentextbc.ca/principlesofeconomics/chapter/4-1-demand-and-supply-at-work-in-labor-markets/). But when excess supply drives wages down, employers are able to afford hiring more employees.
1.3.3.1.3.5.3.2. Pro: Individuals who previously would have been unable to travel long distances would be able to benefit from greater economic opportunities.
1.3.3.2. Pro: Free public transport would likely involve the nationalisation of public transport. [Past experiences](https://capx.co/twenty-five-years-after-privatisation-britain-would-be-mad-to-renationalise-the-railways/) in the United Kingdom suggest that this would result in inefficiencies.
1.3.4. Pro: If discounted public transport resulted in the provision of more efficient services, then free public transport is likely to achieve the same, if not better, results.
1.3.4.1. Pro: The introduction of [Oyster Cards in the UK](https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel) for discounted public transport made services in the UK [more efficient](https://debatewise.org/debates/3403-public-transport-should-be-free/).
1.3.5. Pro: Once public transport is free, higher demand will encourage governments to improve efficiency.
1.3.5.1. Con: Private transport companies would have the same incentive of saving costs as their [main goal is profitability](https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-business/chapter/what-is-a-business/).
1.3.5.1.1. Con: If the demand for private transportation is low, which also impacts profitability, then private companies are unlikely to have the same incentives.
1.3.5.2. Pro: It is likely that cheaper methods of energy provision for public transport would be adopted, such as [solar power](https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2015/01/solar-energy-in-transportation), to save on fuel costs.
1.3.5.3. Pro: Governments would likely be encouraged to shift from staff-based management of public transport to electronic-based management to save on labor costs.
1.4. Con: If transport is managed in the public sector, it is likely that the necessary funding will come from existing public services.
1.4.1. Con: A reduced amount of vehicle traffic as a product of free public transport would mean less damage to roads. The reduced need for highway maintainance may mean it wouldn't be necessary to extract further funds from the public purse.
1.4.1.1. Pro: Current public transport profits currently [help support](https://www.citymetric.com/transport/london-roads-TfL-subsidy-vehicle-excise-duty-road-tax-3521), subsidise, and maintain road infrastructure, where damage is caused by private vehicle usage.
1.4.2. Con: Car and van [emissions](https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/environment/2018/06/05/car-and-van-emissions-cost-nhs-and-society-6-billion-per-annum-says-new-report) cost the British public £6 biliion a year in health damages. Reducing road usage would reduce these costs, potentially meaning there would be no need to source additional funding from other sectors.
1.4.2.1. Pro: Swapping 1 in 4 car journeys for either walking or cycling could save the economy [£1.1 billion](https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/environment/2018/06/05/car-and-van-emissions-cost-nhs-and-society-6-billion-per-annum-says-new-report) a year in health damages.
1.4.2.1.1. Pro: Taking the car rather than a bus can lead to [obesity and diabetes](https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-10-28/why-taking-bus-better-our-health-driving).
1.4.3. Pro: Many transport services are [heavily reliant](https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-are-funded) on the money generated from fares. There must be some source of funds which compensate for the removal of fares.
1.4.3.1. Pro: Public transport in London can [easily generate more money](https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-are-funded) from sources other than transportation fares.
1.4.3.1.1. Pro: In [2019](https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-are-funded), public transportation in London raised £3.4 billion from grants including Crossrail funding.
1.4.3.1.2. Pro: In 2019, London public transport was able to raise [£0.9 billion](https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-are-funded) using a combination of mechanisms including bonds, commercial papers, loans for specific projects from the European Investment Bank and the Public Works Loan Board.
1.4.3.1.3. Pro: Income from the Congestion Charge and road network compliance charges raised [£1.2 billion](https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-are-funded) in 2019.
1.4.3.1.3.1. Con: Public transort being made free is likely to reduce the number of drivers in the city centre, thus decreasing any revenue raised via the congestion charge.
1.4.3.2. Pro: A survey conducted by the American Public Transportation Association \(APTA\) reported that nearly [74%](https://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/on-track-how-states-fund-and-support-public-transportation.aspx) of the respondents agreed to raise taxes to fund public transportation.
1.4.4. Pro: Cuts in other public services may result in people not getting the level of governmental support that they may need, while [paradoxically becoming more reliant on those services](https://www.health.org.uk/blogs/what-do-we-know-about-the-effects-of-cutting-public-funding-for-social-care).
1.4.4.1. Con: It is possible that some public services are overfunded. Cuts can be made to these services and redistributed elsewhere without undermining service quality
1.4.5. Con: There is inevitably a limited amount of money available for public services. Therefore prioritising one public service over another is an economic reality.
1.5. Pro: Free public transport would benefit the environment.
1.5.1. Con: Enviornmental degredation is [beyond the point of return](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/donald-trump-climate-change-policy-global-warming-expert-thomas-crowther-a7450236.html). Thus, facilitating collective travel will have an insignificant impact.
1.5.1.1. Pro: The money used to fund free public transport could be used to research [planetary habitability](https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/space/2019/06/two-potentially-life-friendly-planets-found-orbiting-nearby-star). This would provide a more complete solution to the problem of environmental degredation.
1.5.1.1.1. Con: The earth isn't likely to become uninhabitable for the next [150 million years](https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/when-will-earth-become-uninhabitable/).
1.5.1.1.2. Pro: Some physicists have warned that humans need to [leave the earth](https://www.newsweek.com/stephen-hawking-human-extinction-new-planets-leave-earth-612403) within the next 100 years or else face extinction.
1.5.1.1.3. Con: Money for planetary habitability research would be best sourced from other avenues.
1.5.1.1.3.1. Pro: Many countries have [massive military and defense budgets](https://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp). These could be a great source of funding for planetary habitability.
1.5.1.1.3.1.1. Pro: Money used to create weapons by the state could be used to research planetary habitability instead.
1.5.1.1.3.1.1.1. Pro: In [2015](https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/06/26/how-much-does-the-pentagon-spend-on-weapons-less-than-you-think/#589fbead2bfc), the White House spent about $70 billion to develop war fighting systems, and $108 billion to produce them. Channeling even a proportion of this into planet habitability would achieve substantial results.
1.5.1.1.3.1.1.1.1. Con: No amount of investment to research planetary habitability is guaranteed to produce success. It is possible that only Earth is equipped to sustain human life.
1.5.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: Mars, a planet which is the focus of [scientific study about possible human colonization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mars), has been shown to be unable to sustain human life.
1.5.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: Research has shown that plants and animals [generally cannot survive](https://web.archive.org/web/20010222154617/http://library.thinkquest.org/12145/lifeon.htm) the ambient conditions present on the surface of Mars.
1.5.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: The surface of Mars is [not hospitable to humans or most known life forms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mars) due to the radiation, greatly reduced air pressure, and an atmosphere with only 0.16% oxygen.
1.5.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: Exposure to space radiation is linked to [increased risk](https://www.nasa.gov/hrp/elements/radiation/risks) of cancer, nervous system effects, and degenerative disorders.
1.5.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.2. Pro: The atmospheric pressure on Mars is [far below](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mars) the [Armstrong limit](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-the-armstrong-limit-the-altitude-beyond-which-no-one-can-survive.html) at which humans can survive without pressure suits.
1.5.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.3. Pro: Any human colonization on Mars is going to expose the inhabitants to [health risks](http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/space-exploration/mars-mission/earthlings-martians-living-red-planet-affect-human-bodies/), despite of all necessary protocols being followed.
1.5.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.3.1. Pro: The difference in gravity between Earth and Mars would negatively affect human health by [weakening bones and muscles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mars).
1.5.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.3.2. Con: If the choice is human extinction by remaining on Earth versus health risks on Mars, any and all health risks should be tolerated.
1.5.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.3.2.1. Con: Accepting health risks is likely to result in a painfully prolonged life. Many people will be unwilling to make this choice, and instead chose death over living a painfully prolonged life.
1.5.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.3.3. Pro: Anyone travelling to Mars would be at risk of exposure to a much [higher level of radiation](https://www.space.com/42918-big-space-risks-mars-astronauts-videos.html) than that found on Earth.
1.5.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.3.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.5.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.
1.5.1.1.3.1.2. Pro: In [2019](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States), the US Department of Defense discretionary budget was estimated at $686.1 billion.
1.5.1.1.3.1.3. Pro: The [2019 defense budget](https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/china-hikes-defence-budget-by-7-5-per-cent-to-usd-177-61-billion-119030500095_1.html) of China was 1.19 trillion yuan \(about $177.61 billion\), according to a draft budget report to be submitted at the opening of the annual session of China's parliament, the National People's Congress \(NPC\).
1.5.1.1.3.2. Pro: Extra funding for planet habitability can be arranged by removing or limiting tax exemptions being provided to religious organizations.
1.5.1.1.3.2.1. Pro: Religious tax exemption costs more than [$82.5 billion a year](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2013/08/making-churches-pay-taxes/).
1.5.1.1.3.3. Con: If the reason for pursuing planetary habitability research is due to the threats posed by environmental degredation, it makes more sense to use capital that would otherwise be put toward addressing environmental degredation in less effective ways than using capital from other arbitrary avenues.
1.5.1.2. Con: While global warming can not be reversed, it can be [slowed down](https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1070475/climate-change-can-t-be-stopped-only-slowed-down-interview). Thus efforts should still be made to [reduce](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5485/1655.1) the impact on the environment.
1.5.2. Con: People who otherwise would not use the road, would become [more willing to do so](https://www.ns-businesshub.com/science/free-public-transport-environment/) by assuming less congestion. The overall benefit of free public transport would thus be insignificant for the environment.
1.5.2.1. Pro: Under the model of free public transport, many who would be willing to walk short distances would have [no financial disincentive to take public transport instead.](https://www.dw.com/en/can-free-public-transport-really-reduce-pollution/a-42584328)
1.5.3. Con: Free public transport is not the only environmentally friendly transport choice. There are other methods available to people.
1.5.3.1. Pro: [Carpooling](https://wheelzine.com/why-is-carpooling-good-for-environment) reduces the emissions produced per person when compared to driving alone.
1.5.3.1.1. Pro: Some cities encourage carpooling by providing benefits for cars carrying [multiple passengers](https://grist.org/cities/ridesharing-it-isnt-just-for-the-techy-share-y-set/).
1.5.3.1.2. Pro: New apps such as [Uber and Grab](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/08/top-ride-sharing-apps-in-europe-asia-south-america-africa-and-usa.html) allow cheap carpooling options, which significantly reduces individual emission.
1.5.3.1.2.1. Pro: These apps are also avilable for use in areas that are less well-connected.
1.5.3.2. Pro: [Cycling, travelling via segwa](https://ecowarriorprincess.net/2017/03/urban-green-living-5-eco-friendlier-ways-to-commute-in-the-city/)y or an electric scooter are alternative enviornmentally friendly transport methods.
1.5.3.2.1. Con: Electric scooters and segways are [outlawed](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/electric-scooters-london-san-francisco-lime-bird-spin) on roads and pavements in some cities.
1.5.3.2.1.1. Con: Legislation [can be changed](https://www.plmr.co.uk/blog/comments/how-to-change-a-law/).
1.5.3.2.1.1.1. Pro: The UK's [Department for Transport](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/03/19/e-scooters-could-be-legalized-as-u-k-reviews-1835-law-that-stymied-the-segway/#3a725f53378d) is reviewing outdated laws which prevent the use of E-scooters and segways.
1.5.3.2.1.1.1.1. Pro: Some highway laws in the UK date back to [1835](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/03/19/e-scooters-could-be-legalized-as-u-k-reviews-1835-law-that-stymied-the-segway/#3a725f53378d), long before either the bicycle, the electronic scooter, or the segway were invented.
1.5.3.2.1.1.1.2. Pro: The UK government has submitted that if manufacturers of E-scooters think their design meets all the technical requirements needed for power transporters, they can submit it to the [Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency for approval](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/science/technology/e-scooters-why-are-they-not-legal-on-uk-roads/). This means that the government is willing to look into, and potentially reverse this law.
1.5.3.2.1.1.1.3. Pro: The UK government has [committed to conduct a regulatory review](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/846593/future-of-mobility-strategy.pdf) that will consider options for appropriate testing regimes for E-scooters \(p.11\).
1.5.3.2.2. Con: Due to manufacturing methods, electric scooters produce [more greenhouse gas emissions](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/02/electric-scooter-eco-friendly-greenhouse-gases) per mile than travelling by bus.
1.5.3.2.2.1. Pro: Overall, the average greenhouse gas emissions per scooter mile traveled is just over [200 grams of CO2](https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/2/20751610/scooters-electric-dockless-carbon-emissions-study-life-cycle-analysis), while for a bus it is [140 grams](https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/PublicTransportationsRoleInRespondingToClimateChange2010.pdf) \(p. 4\).
1.5.3.2.3. Con: Safety should not be compromised in pursuit of travelling via environmentally friendly methods.
1.5.3.2.3.1. Pro: In the UK, [electric scooters are classified as motor vehicles](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48106617), subject to the same requirements as other motor vehicles. Given that electric scooters do not meet these requirements, it makes to ban them.
1.5.3.2.3.2. Con: Travelling via bicycle is [safer](https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safest-form-of-transportation/) than travelling via car.
1.5.3.2.3.2.1. Pro: In the [US](https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safest-form-of-transportation/), for every cyclist who dies on a bike, 56 die in cars.
1.5.3.2.3.2.1.1. Con: [88% of households in the US have a car while 53% of households have a bicycle](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/04/global-car-motorcycle-and-bike-ownership-in-1-infographic/390777/). If significantly more people use cars than bicycles, we expect there to be more people who die in cars.
1.5.3.2.3.2.2. Pro: In the US, there were only 623 cyclist deaths in [2010](https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safest-form-of-transportation/), as compared to 35,000 caused by car crashes.
1.5.3.2.3.2.3. Pro: In the [Netherlands](http://www.irmrc.unsw.edu.au/documents/JGarrad.pdf), the risk of being killed while cycling is almost rare, at around 1 per 100 million people \(p. 6\).
1.5.3.2.3.2.4. Con: Car related deaths are often a result of human error.
1.5.3.2.3.2.4.1. Pro: According to one study, driver error, intoxication and other human factors contribute wholly or partly to [around 93% of car crashes.](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/95winter/p95wi14.cfm)
1.5.3.2.3.2.4.2. Pro: A speaker for the National Highway Traffic Safety Association suggested that [overconfidence about traffic safety](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7XbcDaeigMaxW43EB/how-to-avoid-dying-in-a-car-crash) was another factor contributing to car crashes.
1.5.3.2.3.2.4.2.1. Pro: [78%](https://www.drivers.com/article/157) of British drivers rate their own driving skill highly.
1.5.3.2.3.2.4.2.1.1. Con: British habits behind the wheel suggest that they are unskilled drivers.
1.5.3.2.3.2.4.2.1.1.1. Pro: 9% of British men and 5% of women admit to [using a handheld device](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/bad-driving-habits-yougov-survey-a8863166.html) whilst driving.
1.5.3.2.3.2.4.2.1.1.1.1. Con: Many devices have the option of being used with a [handsfree](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190207173255.htm) adaptation, which can make them safe to be used when driving.
1.5.3.2.3.2.4.2.1.1.1.2. Pro: Driving while using a mobile phone [reduces brain activity](https://itstillworks.com/dangers-using-cell-phones-driving-1253.html) by 37%.
1.5.3.2.3.2.4.2.1.1.1.3. Pro: Texting whilst driving accounts for nearly [25%](https://www.tigermobiles.com/faq/texting-and-driving-statistics/) of road traffic collisions globally.
1.5.3.2.3.2.5. Con: Cycling a certain distance generally takes longer than it would take in a car, so over the same trip there is [greater exposure to an accident for a cyclist](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29878233).
1.5.3.2.3.2.5.1. Pro: Based on the time spent traveling, a cyclist is [five times more likely](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29878233) to have a fatal accident than a car driver in the UK.
1.5.3.2.3.3. Pro: [Statistics](https://www.statista.com/statistics/300601/average-number-of-fatalities-according-to-transport-in-the-united-kingdom/) from the United Kingdom on the average number of fatalities per billion passengers, categorised by modes of transport show that bicycles are significantly more dangerous than travelling via car, bus or rail.
1.5.3.2.3.3.1. Con: There are many things that these statistics do not account for. For example, the passengers who died on a bicycle may have died because ambulance response times were longer in a particular area where bicycle usage was disproportionately high.
1.5.3.2.4. Pro: There are [additional health incentives](https://www.bikeradar.com/features/9-reasons-why-bike-commuting-is-better-than-driving/) to travel via bicycle instead of travelling via car or public transport.
1.5.3.2.4.1. Pro: The health benefits can produce other, positive, [knock-on effects](https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safest-form-of-transportation/) in one's life.
1.5.3.2.4.2. Con: Many people [do not live close](https://humantransit.org/2010/11/san-francisco-a-rational-stop-spacing-plan.html) to a train or bus station. This means that the get a considerable amount of exercise while traveling to these stations, which also brings health benefits.
1.5.3.2.4.2.1. Con: According to Public Health England, [walking is not sufficient exercise](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jul/03/people-not-getting-enough-exercise-from-long-walks-health-report).
1.5.3.2.4.3. Pro: Riding a bike has been proven to [decrease cancer risk by half](https://www.bikeradar.com/news/commuting-by-bike-can-cut-cancer-risk-by-half/) among individuals.
1.5.3.2.4.4. Pro: Studies show that riding a bike for two miles a day saves an individual from missing about [two sick days of work per year](https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safest-form-of-transportation/).
1.5.3.2.5. Con: Environmentally friendly transport method should also take into account the materials used in the production of these vehicles. The production of thousands of cycles, electric scooters or segways will consume much more [plastic or aluminum](https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/2/20751610/scooters-electric-dockless-carbon-emissions-study-life-cycle-analysis) than a handful of buses or trains.
1.5.3.2.6. Con: Electric scooters require electricity to charge, which in a large part, is produced by [fossil fuels](https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/2/20751610/scooters-electric-dockless-carbon-emissions-study-life-cycle-analysis).
1.5.3.3. Pro: [Electric cars](https://www.edfenergy.com/electric-cars/environment) emit less greenhouse gases and air pollutants over their life than a petrol or diesel car.
1.5.3.3.1. Con: Electric cars rely on electricity and 60% of electricity produced in the world comes from fossil fuels. Thus, an electric car produces [nearly as much carbon dioxide per kilometre as a petrol or disel car.](https://www.energuide.be/en/questions-answers/are-electric-vehicles-really-environmentally-friendly/197/)
1.5.3.3.1.1. Con: Although electric vehicles do have a large carbon footprint overall, their lack of [direct emissions](https://www.energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/reducing-pollution-electric-vehicles) means their usage is likely to improve air quality in built up or traffic heavy areas.
1.5.3.3.2. Pro: A [study](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab2da8) from North Carolina State University found that electric scooters are more environmentally friendly than most cars used for transportation.
1.5.3.3.3. Con: Electric cars are significantly [more expensive](https://www.erneuerbar-mobil.de/en/node/985) than conventional ones, which means that most households will be unlikely to afford buying or maintaining them.
1.5.3.3.3.1. Pro: In the [UK](https://www.erneuerbar-mobil.de/en/node/985), electric cars have a price tag of about 500 euros per kWh for a mid-size vehicle with a battery capacity of 20kW, and the cost of the battery system adds up to 10,000 euros.
1.5.3.3.3.2. Pro: According to data collected from 43 markets around the world, the [average retail price](https://www.jato.com/electric-cars-cost-double-the-price-of-other-cars-on-the-market-today/) of an electric car is 81% higher than other cars bought by consumers in 2019.
1.5.3.3.3.3. Pro: In 2019, the average retail price of electric cars in Europe \(plus Israel and Turkey\) totaled [$34,091 per unit](https://www.jato.com/electric-cars-cost-double-the-price-of-other-cars-on-the-market-today/), which is higher than the income of most people.
1.5.3.3.3.4. Pro: Electric vehicles also require an [electric vehicle supply equipment \(EVSE\)](https://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/the-true-cost-of-powering-an-electric-car.html) to supply them with power, which adds to the price of the vehicle.
1.5.3.3.3.4.1. Pro: In the US, the price of EVSEs for quality Level 2 home systems range from [$200 to more than $1,000](https://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/the-true-cost-of-powering-an-electric-car.html) per vehicle.
1.5.3.3.3.5. Con: The average price of electric vehicles within the US is [declining](https://qz.com/1695602/the-average-electric-vehicle-is-getting-cheaper-in-the-us/). This means that as time passes, electric vehicles will get more affordable for average households.
1.5.3.3.3.5.1. Pro: In [2019](https://qz.com/1695602/the-average-electric-vehicle-is-getting-cheaper-in-the-us/), data analyzed by research house Cox Automotive showed that EV prices dropped from $64,300 to $55,600, a 13.4% decline since 2018.
1.5.3.3.3.5.2. Pro: Cheaper batteries, more models, and economies of scale as manufacturers ramp up assembly lines will continue to [drive down the prices](https://qz.com/1695602/the-average-electric-vehicle-is-getting-cheaper-in-the-us/) of electric vehicles in the coming years.
1.5.3.3.3.5.2.1. Pro: Tesla [reduced the price](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/16/tesla-cuts-price-on-model-3-discontinues-versions-of-model-s-model-x.html) of its success selling electric vehicle, the Model 3, which now has a starting retail price of [$38,990](https://www.tesla.com/model3/design#battery).
1.5.3.3.3.5.3. Pro: Between [2010 and 2016](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/20/electric-car-prices-finally-in-reach-of-millennial-gen-z-buyers.html), the cost of electric car batteries went down by over 70%, lowering the average transaction cost for electric cars.
1.5.3.3.3.5.4. Con: The price of goods is not the only factor that impacts affordability. Inflation, changes to household income and many other factors also play a role. Thus, it does not make sense to note a downward trend in the price of electric vehicles and conclude that electric vehicles are, and will continue to become more affordable.
1.5.3.3.3.6. Con: Buying a used electric vehicle is cheaper than buying a new one, with used EVs costing between [43% to 72%](https://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/the-pros-and-cons-of-buying-a-used-ev.html) less than new ones, depending on the model.
1.5.3.3.3.7. Con: Even though electric cars cost more, the [lower fuel costs alongside higher mileage](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/20/electric-car-prices-finally-in-reach-of-millennial-gen-z-buyers.html) could prove to be more economical for its owners in the long term.
1.5.3.3.3.7.1. Pro: According to the [US Department of Energy](https://www.energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/saving-fuel-and-vehicle-costs), fueling an electric car costs almost half as much as a gasoline car.
1.5.3.4. Con: Less people are likely to be using environmentally friendly travelling methods compared to the number of people using public transport, mostly due to convenience.
1.5.3.4.1. Pro: In 2018, the [global electric car fleet exceeded 5.1 million](https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2019), but 34 million times each weekday people board public transportation.
1.5.3.4.2. Con: [Electric vehicles will grow from 3 million to 125 million by 2030](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/30/electric-vehicles-will-grow-from-3-million-to-125-million-by-2030-iea.html), International Energy Agency forecasts.
1.5.3.4.3. Con: Environmentally friendly travel and free public transport need not be antonymous: many transport systems are incorporating more and more [low carbon](https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-articles/78130/environmentally-freindly-hydrogen/) solutions.
1.5.4. Pro: More use of public transport would mean that the overall greenhouse gas emissions in the environment will be [significantly reduced](https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/environmental-programs/transit-environmental-sustainability/transit-role).
1.5.4.1. Con: In places where free public transport has been introduced, a substantial number of 'new' public transport users were [people who would otherwise walk.](https://www.dw.com/en/can-free-public-transport-really-reduce-pollution/a-42584328) Thus, for these people, individual emissions would increase.
1.5.4.2. Con: Free public transport would encourage people to use transport services for leisure and tourism when they may otherwise have stayed at home. This would have the effect of [increasing emissions](https://www.greenbiz.com/article/road-more-traveled-tourisms-alarming-and-growing-carbon-footprint).
1.5.4.3. Pro: Public transport means that there are many passengers in a single vehicle, thus [reducing the number of vehicles and the harmful emissions associated with these vehicles.](https://www.nationalexpresstransit.com/blog/why-is-public-transportation-good-for-the-environment/)
1.5.4.3.1. Pro: Trains and buses [produce less ​CO2](https://theconversation.com/free-public-transport-is-great-news-for-the-environment-but-its-no-silver-bullet-109685) per passenger-kilometer than private motor vehicles.
1.5.4.3.2. Con: Just because emissions are reduced doesn't make it better for the environment.
1.5.4.3.2.1. Pro: Some [train networks](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jan/22/greenwash-train-travel) are run on electricity powered by nuclear energy which has its own environmental impact.
1.5.4.3.2.1.1. Pro: Nuclear power plants use uranium as fuel, whose [mining process](https://sciencing.com/nuclear-energy-affect-environment-4566966.html) releases high amounts of carbon dioxide into the environment.
1.5.4.3.2.1.2. Pro: Nuclear energy plants constantly emit [low levels of radiation](https://sciencing.com/nuclear-energy-affect-environment-4566966.html) into the environment.
1.5.4.3.2.1.3. Pro: Cooling systems are used to keep nuclear power plants from overheating, which contribute to [additional environmental problems](https://sciencing.com/nuclear-energy-affect-environment-4566966.html).
1.5.4.3.2.1.3.1. Pro: The cooling system [pulls water](https://sciencing.com/nuclear-energy-affect-environment-4566966.html) from an ocean or river source. Fish are inadvertently captured in the cooling system intake and killed, damaging the marine life.
1.5.4.3.2.1.3.2. Pro: After the water is used to cool the power plant, it is returned to the ocean or river. The water that is returned is approximately [25 degrees warmer](https://sciencing.com/nuclear-energy-affect-environment-4566966.html) than what the water was originally, which kills some species of fish and plant life.
1.5.4.3.2.1.4. Pro: Radioactive nuclear waste is increasingly dangerously stored near the earth's surface - as opposed to deep underground - due to an increased [threat from terrorism](https://news.un.org/en/story/2003/07/74692-terror-threat-increases-risks-current-nuclear-waste-storage-methods-iaea).
1.5.4.4. Pro: National averages in the US [demonstrate](https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/environmental-programs/transit-environmental-sustainability/transit-role) that public transportation produces significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile than private vehicles.
1.5.4.4.1. Pro: Heavy rail transit such as [subways and metros](https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/environmental-programs/transit-environmental-sustainability/transit-role) produce on average 76% lower greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile than an average [single-occupancy vehicle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-occupancy_vehicle) \(SOV\).
1.5.5. Pro: Free public transport will [improve air quality](https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/environmental-programs/transit-environmental-sustainability/transit-role), especially in urban and suburban areas where the air quality is significantly poor and hazardous.
1.5.5.1. Pro: Most public transit vehicles, such as trains, emit little or no pollution as they are [powered by electricity](https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/environmental-programs/transit-environmental-sustainability/transit-role). This would significantly reduce the strain on air quality.
1.5.6. Pro: Sharing rides through public transportation can save non-renewable resources, which are [consumed at unsustainable rates](https://www.worldenergy.org/assets/images/imported/2016/10/World-Energy-Resources-Full-report-2016.10.03.pdf) to fuel private transportation needs \(p. 14\).
1.5.6.1. Pro: In [2007](https://www.nap.edu/read/12794/chapter/5), the United States consumed 7.5 billion barrels of crude oil and petroleum products, of which nearly 70% was used by the transportation sector.
1.5.6.2. Pro: Public transportation encourages [energy and fuel conservation](https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/environmental-programs/transit-environmental-sustainability/transit-role), as the average number of passengers on a transit vehicle \(10 for bus, 25 for a rail car\) far exceeds that of a private automobile \(1.6\).
1.5.6.3. Pro: A study by ICF International [found](http://www.studentsonclimatechange.com/opinion) that using public transportation saved 947 million gallons of fuel that would have been used if transit passengers had driven cars instead.
1.5.6.4. Pro: The Texas Transportation Institute’s [Mobility Report estimates](https://mobility.tamu.edu/umr/) that riders traveling in private vehicles consume, on the whole, 340 million more gallons of fuel that could otherwise be saved by using public transport.
1.6. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.1.3.
1.7. Con: Making public transport free would put a strain on an already strained service.
1.7.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.1.
1.7.2. Pro: -> See 1.3.2.
1.7.3. Pro: In many countries, [especially developing countries](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-03137-8_5), public services already suffer from a lack of any investment and maintenance. Making public transport free in these countries will impact them even more negatively.
1.7.4. Con: In order to prevent straining an already overstretched service, free public transport could be implemented alongside development programmes which would help transport services keep up with the increased demand.
1.7.4.1. Con: Any further spending needed to increase the service quality of public transport is unlikley given that [there are always many other areas that could benefit from government spending.](https://www.water.org.uk/blog-post/why-we-own-it-are-wrong-about-nationalisation-with-the-facts-to-prove-it/)
1.7.4.2. Pro: Goverments could work alongside private sector bodies to create a seamlessly integreated mobility system \([SIMSystem](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/transport-commute-systems-government-simsystem/)\) in order to make citywide and surburban transport more effective and [effictient](https://www.weforum.org/projects/enabling-smart-mobility-solutions-beyond-urban-centers).
1.7.4.3. Pro: Where staffing is an issue, cities could implement a [self-driving bus service](https://www.trapezegroup.eu/news/self-driving-vehicle-launched-in-bern), such as that trialled in Bern, Switzerland.
1.7.5. Con: Even if transport services do become more strained, people could factor in delays and longer journey times when travelling. The removal of costs makes this a tolerable trade-off.
1.7.6. Pro: In the perception of the public, making something free may reduce its value. Thus, people will care less if public transport is vandalized or dirty. In contrast, if they were to pay for the service, they would have a personal interest in keeping it clean, safe and functioning.